Sponsored links

The virgin birth (conception) of Jesus

Common beliefs of many liberal
theologians, skeptics, humanists, etc.

Liberal Christian theologians, Agnostics,
Atheists, Humanists, etc. tend to approach passages in the Bible differently than do
conservative Christians. Liberal theologians do not generally view the Bible as inerrant; rather they
view the
Christian Scriptures (New Testament) as a historical document,
written by creative authors whose main task was to promote the specific beliefs of their
own faith group within the Christian movement. Liberals study verses
in the light of non-Biblical Jewish and Christian writings, the culture of the time, the
beliefs of nearby Pagan societies, the evolving beliefs of the various Jesus
movements, etc.
Most liberal theologians do not believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth.

Skepticism about the virgin birth is not a recent
development, as evidenced by a 1823 quote by Thomas Jefferson:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by
the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be
classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of
Jupiter." 9

However, the membership of mainline and liberal denominations like the United
Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church,
USA, etc. tend to be significantly more conservative than their ministers and
theologians. Belief in the virgin birth is much higher among the laity than the
clergy.

Common beliefs among religious liberals and skeptics:

St. Paul seems to have been unaware of the virgin birth St. Paul
apparently knew little about the life and teachings of Jesus. He does not mention the virgin
birth anywhere in his writings. It would seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known
of the special conditions of Jesus' birth he would have certainly mentioned them in one of his
epistles. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: he seems to have thought that
Jesus
birth was natural and conventional:

Between 49 and 55 CE, he recorded the first known written reference to
Jesus' birth. In Galatians
4:4, he writes:

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born
under law."

If he knew that Jesus had been conceived by a virgin, the information would have been of
momentous importance. He would have undoubtedly replaced "woman"
with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was
miraculous. This passage was written some 45 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke
were written, and 55 to 62 years after Jesus' birth.

In about 57 CE, he wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3
he writes:

"I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto
the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul
believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David
to Joseph. The phrase "according to the flesh" seems to imply a natural, normal
conception and birth.

Paul does not write anything about Jesus' family in any of his Epistles
except for a single reference in Galatians 1 to James, the head of the Jewish
Christian church in Jerusalem. Paul called James "the Lord's brother" -- an
individual with whom he had many disagreements. 3

The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable:
Livy, a famous Roman
historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely
circulated in the first decades of the 1st century CE. In it, he explained that Mars, the
Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of
Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. 4
Some
Christian groups may have slightly modified this fable and adopted it as their own, in an attempt
to show that Jesus was a person of very great importance -- an individual at
least as important as the founders of Rome.

The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion5
History records that various religions claimed that:

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by
three kings.

In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after
his death.

The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of
Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later
claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." 6

In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An
alternative myth is that he emerged from a rock.

Also in Persia, Zoroaster was born of a virgin.

In India, there are two main stories of the birth of
Krishna, one of the incarnations of
Vishnu, and the second person within the Hindu Trinity. In one
story, Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while
she was still a virgin. In the other, he had a normal conception and
birth.

Wikipedia explains another Hindu reference to a virgin conception
and :

"... an example of a story where the woman's physical virginity
is explicitly maintained by the god who impregnates her is found in
a Hindu Purana. '"The sun-god said: O beautiful Pŗthā,
your meeting with the demigods cannot be fruitless. Therefore, let
me place my seed in your womb so that you may bear a son. I shall
arrange to keep your virginity intact, since you are still an
unmarried girl'." 12

Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors, and for Alexander
the Great of Greece.

One source is quoted as saying that there were many
mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and
Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:

been male.

lived in pre-Christian times.

had a god for a father.

human virgin for a mother.

had their birth announced by a heavenly display.

had their birth announced by celestial music.

been born about DEC-25.

had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant

However, there are two types of virgin births found in the world's
religions. One type, as in the conception and birth of Jesus and
Buddha, involves the Holy Spirit inducing the pregnancy in a virgin
without engaging in intercourse. The other type is more common and involves an actual
physical God engaging in sexual intercourse or interacting with a virgin in some other way.

The Jewish Christians rejected the virgin birth. They were the
original religious group formed by Jesus' followers who established a Jewish
group in Jerusalem. They were led by James the Just. He was the brother of
Jesus, and thus could have been expected to know of any miraculous
circumstances of Jesus' birth.

Delayed creation of the virgin birth story: ChristianAnswers.Net suggests that: "No respectable Jew would
have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian mythological base
for an account dealing with the birth of his/her Messiah." 2
This may explain why the story of the
virgin birth first appeared in the Gospel of Matthew. It was written circa 80
CE at a time when most Christians were converts from
Paganism who had been taught about virgin births in their former religions.

The virgin birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures: Throughout the Old
Testament, we hear of the very unusual births 6 of Ishmael,
Isaac, Samson and Samuel. Usually prior to the birth, an angel appears to the
parent-to-be;
the latter is afraid; the message of an upcoming birth is given; objections are raised;
and a sign is given. Matthew and Luke could have replicated the essence of these stories,
and added a virgin birth as proof that Jesus' birth was beyond simply unusual;
it was a
miracle. This would establish Jesus at a much higher status than the four famous figures
from the Hebrew Scriptures. Without a miraculous birth, Jesus might have
been considered to be only equal in stature to those heroes.

The virgin birth story was an honest mistake: Most liberal
theologians and biblical historians believe that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in
Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to
the Greek word for virgin. This is perhaps the most commonly accepted
explanation among skeptics, secularists, and religious liberals.
More information.

The virgin birth story is an allegory: It is a metaphor and is not intended to be
interpreted literally. Wikipedia states that according to author Uta
Ranke-Heinemann:

"... the virgin birth of Jesus was meant to and should be
understood as an allegory of a special initiative of God and not
biologically. It could be compared to the creation of Adam in the sense
that both creations were by God. It suits to the legends and diction of
the allegories of the antiquity according to which famous people
originate from gods (like Augustus as the son of Apollo or Alexander the
Great as the son of lightning." 13

In 1987, The Vatican responded to
Ranke-Heinemann's assertion on the virgin birth by cancelling her ecclesiastical license to
teach at any Roman Catholic institution.

Sponsored link:

The writer(s) of the Gospel of John imply a normal birth: Some liberals believe
that the Gospel of John was written by a group of authors. The writer(s) did not mention
the virgin birth. They almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the
Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching:

In John
1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph."

John
6:42 has the townspeople ask: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose
father and mother we know?"

If the author(s) of John believed in the
miracle of the virgin birth, he/they would undoubtedly have mentioned
it somewhere in the gospel, and they would not have referred to Joseph as Jesus'
father on two occasions.

There is only one independent account of the virgin birth in the New
Testament: Both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain references to
the virgin birth. Many religious conservatives point to this double
attestation as a strong indication that the story is valid. However, many liberal theologians
believe that the account in Luke is aforgery. They
suggest that the first part of Luke was a later addition by an unknown
person, and not written by the same author who wrote the remainder of Luke.
One good indication of this is that the section dealing with the virgin birth
was written in a different style of Greek than the rest of the Gospel. Also, it can be
severed from the rest of the Gospel and the latter's text would still flow
well. That would leave Matthew as the sole reference to the virgin birth. A
general rule of biblical interpretation is that a major Christian dogma
requires more than one independent attestation.

The writer(s) of the Gospel of Thomas is silent: Many
theologians believe that this Gospel was
originally written about
the same time as Mark, about 70 CE. It was in wide use among various Christian communities
at the time, but never made it into the official canon. It is also silent about any miracles
associated with Jesus' birth. However, its silence is not proof that the virgin birth was
unknown to the author(s). Thomas is a "sayings gospel" which deals primarily
with the parables and conversations of Jesus. Its author might have not
considered the details of Jesus' birth to be sufficiently important to write about.

The Writers of the Gospel of Q are silent on the virgin birth: The
Gospel of Q was another early
sayings gospel. It was written about 50 CE and
later expanded. No copies have survived, but much of the original text was incorporated
into both
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The wording of Q has been pieced together
through theological research. It says nothing about the virgin birth. This is a possible
indicator that the early followers of Jesus did not hold that belief. If they knew of such
an important miracle, they would probably have included some mention of it.

The medical impossibility of a Virgin Birth: Some animal species can reproduce from an
unfertilized ovum, in a process called parthenogenesis. The Webster's New World
Dictionary mentions that this occurs in certain insects and algae. Although
"it
is the rule among rotifers and quite common in plants and insect, it does not appear above
the plane of the amphibians."1 A virgin birth is
considered impossible for species as complex as the higher apes or humans. An
additional complexity would be that if Jesus had been born of a virgin
conception, he would have been female,
since he would lack the Y chromosome as contributed by a human
father.

However, there are at least two methods by which a virgin
conception could have been produced. Researchers are currently experimenting with various medical
cloning techniques.
One involves taking the ovum from a mammal, removing its DNA,
injecting the DNA from the cell of another animal of the same species
and successfully inducing a pregnancy. Since God is normally conceived
of as omnipotent, then he could have followed the same procedure with an ovum
from Mary and a piece of DNA that he created or borrowed from a male
human. Alternatively, God could have created a single human sperm inside Mary and
caused the conception directly.

The possibility of conception without sexual intercourse:
Joseph and
Marycould have engaged in sexual activity short of actual sexual
intercourse. Even without actual penetration, it is possible for a small amount of semen
to be released and cause conception. We recall reading that in 1st century
Galilee, it was commonly for couples to live together and engage in sexual activity and
intercourse before marriage. When a child was born to the couple, they got married. This
might have happened to Joseph and Mary. Unfortunately, we have been unable to relocate the
reference about 1st century customs in that area.

The genealogy of Jesus is fictional: Matthew 1:1 states that King
David was one of Yeshua of Nazareth's his ancestors. In fact, his genealogy
is traced back to Abraham in subsequent verses. Luke 1:27 and 1:32 also
identifies Yeshua as being descended from the House of David. Luke 3
contains a different, incompatible genealogy which also traces his ancestry
back to David. However, a near consensus of liberal theologians believe that
Jews in the first century BCE were unable to trace their lineage since the
concept of tribal membership was lost during their exile in Babylon. 10

Conclusions:

The most likely scenario, as interpreted by many liberal Christian
theologians, skeptics, etc. is:

The writer(s) of the Gospel of Q, circa 50 CE, were unaware of the virgin
birth because Christians had not invented the concept at the time.

The Jewish Christians, centered in Jerusalem under the leadership of
James were the first followers of
Christ. They were led by James the Good -- called the brother
of Jesus. They rejected the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus.

Paul (who was executed about 64 CE) was similarly unaware.

The writer of the Gospel of Mark, circa 70 CE hadn't heard of it either.

If any of the above writers knew of a virgin birth, they would almost certainly have
considered it a miraculous event and would have incorporated it into their
writings.

Sometime after 70 and CE, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the
authority of Jesus' teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of
great change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered
many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with
many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In
fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not
include
many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.

By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The author of the Gospel of Matthew incorporated it
into their Gospels.

At some unknown time, an unknown forger added the virgin birth story to
the Gospel of Luke.

Circa 100 CE, the writer(s) of the Gospel of John likely knew of the story, but rejected it as being a false
teaching that was not accepted by their Christian faith group.

As J.S. Spong, retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, wrote:

"In time, the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the
cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose
purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of
God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings."11

A religion/science conflict now exists between:

The teaching of most denominations that Jesus' conception occurred while
Mary was a virgin, and

Biological research which finds the concept to be impossible in humans.

As Christians increasingly accept the findings of science, this conflict will
probably increase in importance, and lead to greater skepticism about the
virginal conception. Thomas Jefferson's prediction may well eventually come
true. In 1823 he prophesized that:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme
Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable
of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." 15